[drenginian]

Sounds vague.

I’d say do like bill gates and put the billions directly into worthwhile causes instead instead of suggesting the trickle down will be unquantified but amazing.

[flancian]

I'd say let's do both; let's try every approach, in rational proportions.

There is likely an optimal ratio of spending between humanitarian causes and existential risks. What is it? Is this ratio, and others that have the potential for shaping the future of humanity, openly discussed somewhere?

If so, where?

[tasogare]

Bill Gates is funding some humanitarian ventures without thinking to the next decades externalities it has. 100% feel good and PR actions, yet questionable in the grand scheme of things.

[anoncake]

Externalities such as?

[Mediterraneo10]

One externality I have seen mentioned goes as follows: fewer childhood malaria deaths in sub-Saharan Africa mean more unemployed or under-employed young men being tempted to cross the Mediterranean, exacerbating political tensions in North Africa and Europe. But obviously, if you are a philanthropist and saving every human life is your chief concern, then such thinking can seem repugnant.

[alasdair_]

In the long term, reducing infant mortality consistently leads to a reduction in the number of children per mother.

[QuesnayJr]

Because it's impossible for jobs to exist in Africa?